Robert Freke Gould

The latest of the Masonic Celebrities who have figured in my portrait gallery, is Dr. Thomas Manningham,[1] and I am now requested by the Editor of our Transactions to consider whether in any material respect, the general fidelity of that sketch has been either shaken or otherwise impaired by the criticism it has experienced.

The remarks to which my attention has been specially invited by Bro. Speth are from the pens of Bros. Lane and Whymper, and will be found in the last part or number of Ars, and the current one respectively.[2]

Before, however, commencing to deal with them, let me express the very great pleasure it has afforded me, that an article written by myself, should have been the means of drawing from their moorings, into the front of the fighting line, two "first-raters," carrying such heavy metal, as the writers I have last referred to.

Of Bro. John Lane — our premier Masonic statistician — it may be said, that he has hitherto devoted himself rather too exclusively to a single department of research, and though calculated to shine in a large number, remains content to hold, against all comers, the field he has so completely made his own — by excelling everyone of us who has entered it before him.

Bro. Whymper, of late years, has taken upon himself the role of a Missionary of the Craft in partibus infidelium, and those only whose memories carry them back to what the periodical literature of Masonry in our Indian Empire was, before this brother applied himself to refine and elevate it, can have any idea whatever of the extent to which his own personal writings have contributed to establish the high standard of Masonic knowledge, that now admittedly exists there.

It is a very excellent thing for the members of this Lodge to have two such untiring students — I cannot say quite, in their midst, but in their ranks, and my own appreciation of their labours, which — through the medium of a quotation — will be next given, I shall ask them to regard or accept, as a set-off or counterpoise,to the friendly feeling towards myself which pervades their several articles.

The late Ernest Renan tells us; "Had I been born to be the head of a School, I should have had a singular crotchet, I should have loved only those of my disciples that might happen to detach themselves from me."

Without, indeed, going the extreme length to which the great Semitic scholar, whose recent death may fairly be viewed as a world-wide calamity, has allowed himself to be carried, there is much in his frank avowal with which I am wholly in accord.

Thus, leaving out the notion of being the head of a School — who, with us is always the Master of the Quatuor Coronati Lodge for the time being — and merely speaking in my individual capacity as a student, the great respect and admiration with which I regard so much of the work performed by the I.P.M. and Secretary of this Lodge, represent in point of fact, the tribute I involuntarily yield to the force of character they exhibit in having at all times the courage of their opinions.

I am therefore very greatly obliged to Bros. Lane and Whymper for bringing me to book on any point where they think I have gone astray.

All keys hang not in one girdle.

Nor, do I consider it even remotely possible that any single writer who ventures to touch on the vexed question of the Great Schism in English Masonry, could fully dissipate the obscurity with which it is surrounded.

But the two interpellations have also a special value of their own that should not be overlooked — they indicate to our vast Circle that,

The Priests of Masonic Science have their Inquisition.

The last word, however, must be understood in a good sense, as meaning in the phraseology of Ancient Masonry, that a brother against whom anything is alleged, should "stand to the award of his fellows," and in that of its modern equivalent, that any writer of the Craft whose statements are assailed, must submit to be put (not to the rack, but) to the proof.

In my Memoir of Dr. Manningham, there were two positions laid down, against the validity of which it has been contended, first, that the governing body of the Schismatic Grand Lodge of England was already a "Grand Lodge," when only styled by me a "Grand Committee": and secondly that I have attached undue weight to certain statements in an anonymous and undated work,[3] instead of following such safe guides as John Noorthouck[4] and William Preston.[5]

With regard to the points which are here raised, let me begin by expressing the hope that I shall not be found impervious to just criticism, nor tardy in acknowledging any errors into which I may have fallen.

A pleasing writer observes, and the advice he tenders is as happily conceived as it is forcibly expressed: "Speak what you think to-day in words as hard as cannon-balls, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow speaks, in hard words again; though it contradicts everything you have said to-day. "[6]

Nearly ten years have elapsed, since I described, to the best of my ability, the rise and progress of the "Schismatics" or "Ancients,"[7] and the gravamen of the offence which is laid at my door by Bro. Lane, I take to be, that in the last literary portrait executed by me for these Transactions, I have again touched on the subject of the Great Schism, but without noticing in any way a material fact having relation thereto, which was published by Bro. Lane himself, after the appearance in print of the fourth half volume of my History.[8]

To this charge I plead guilty, though the confession is untinged with remorse, since it would have been quite impossible for me to interweave with a biography of Dr. Manningham, all the interesting excerpts from old records that are now furnished by Bro. Lane,[9] and by the aid of which every reader of Ars will be enabled to form an independent judgment in regard to the points that have been raised for discussion.

The main question, indeed, appears to me, one of a purely "academical" character, though I must not be supposed as thereby wishing to convey that it is unworthy of being ventilated in these columns. That there was a governing body of so-called "Ancients" before 1753, is free from doubt; but not entirely so, I venture to think, the term or title by which it would be most accurately described.

In Johnson's Dictionary, the 7th meaning of the word "Commission" reads; "The state of that which is entrusted to a number of joint officers; as, the broad seal was put into commission." Very much the same thing might be alleged with respect to the functions of a Grand Master, under the "Ancients," at the period of our inquiry, and it may be submitted for consideration whether any better title than "Grand Committee" would be applicable to the joint officers unto whom the performance of such "functions" was allotted?

Bro. Lane says, "The inference that there could be no Grand Lodge without a Grand Master will not, in my opinion, commend itself to the Fraternity at large." But leaving wholly out of sight the not unimportant fact of there being already in existence a Grand Lodge of England, when the new organisation had its beginning, let the question be put whether at any time since the Old System of Masonry was succeeded by the New, or in other words from 1717 downwards, would a body styling itself a "Grand Lodge" but which had never possessed a Grand Master, have been accorded recognition by any duly constituted Masonic authority?

But as our Bro. Lane, with his usual candour, has printed all the evidence bearing on the point under discussion, any slip I may have made in omitting to mention the discovery of "Morgan's Register," has been more than remedied by the publication of its contents at far greater length than would have been possible in connection with my own article, unless indeed, I could have induced our worthy Editor to allow that already rather lengthy contribution to assume still more formidable proportions, by the addition of an appendix.

Passing from the criticism of Bro. Lane to that of Bro. Whymper, I find it to be no longer an "affair of outposts," as the latter has evidently taken up positions with a view to bringing on a "general engagement." He offers battle "all along the line."

But before coming to close quarters with my genial antagonist, and by way of limiting in some degree the area over which our contention may extend, let me lay down what I believe will not be demurred to by Bro. Whymper, viz., that all the statements with regard to the origin (or causes) of the Great Schism in English Masonry, by writers of the last century, are of a somewhat fanciful character; and there is an insufficiency of positive evidence either to confirm or to disprove them.

If this be conceded, then the parties in the controversy which is being proceeded with — to wit, our Bro. Whymper, the writer of this article, and possibly even Bro. Lane himself, may be likened to

"Teague's cocks, that fought one another, though all were on the same side."

It is impossible to lay down any fixed rule with respect to the extent it is permissible to attempt an explanation of that which, in our present state of knowledge, is hopelessly obscure. But it is quite evident that whenever such an attempt is made, it must necessarily follow, in cases where "the lighthouses and landmarks of facts have been swept away," that any argument becomes maintainable.

As it has been well expressed, — "What is incapable of proof is also incapable of refutation; a boundary line that cannot be defined cannot be disputed," Everyone who makes a careful study of our English Masonic history at the period we are now upon, may and probably will, strike out a path of his own, and in all such cases, whether the distance traversed be a long or a short one, unless I am greatly mistaken, a wise saying that was garnered by George Herbert in his famous collection, will be found to apply,

"Every path hath a puddle."

When facts fail us, we are thrown back upon conjecture, and with one and all of the guesses we make at the truth — regarding the matter now in hand — there are difficulties in the way, which cannot be wholly removed, though they may be sensibly lessened by resorting to a system of comparison. Thus, for example, if there are, as I willingly admit to be the case, certain difficulties about the belief I have expressed with respect to the early history of the Schismatics or Ancients, let us see, whether the difficulties the other way, by which is meant the alternative conjecture propounded by Bro. Whymper, are not greater?

This will enable me to grapple with him more closely, for though in relation to matters of ascertained fact, we are, I thoroughly believe, "fighting on the same side," nevertheless in the region of theory, where a totally different opinion is not only allowable but praise-worthy, something in the nature of a private war — at all events of words — may conveniently be set up between us.

Bro. Whymper has advanced with vigour to the Attack, and I shall conjure up a similar spirit of resolution, to assist me in the Defence. If we are both pronounced to be of a dogmatical kind, it will not matter, at least to ourselves, since it is the way of the positive to seek the opposing positive as its natural food and exercise, because, to use the American orator's vivid image, — it gives one such a tremendous wrench to kick out hard at nothing?*[10]

Mr. Whymper's chief points are, that instead of Lord Byron having neglected the duties of his high station, the probability is rather the other way; also, that the long footnote of fifty lines which straggles over three pages of Noorthouck's Constitutions,[11] together with the writings of William Preston,[12] virtually supersede, as being of superior authority, the anonymous statement by the author of Multa Paucis.

Now to begin with, the foot-note in the Constitutions of 1784, was copied from the Freemasons' Calendar of 1783; but the subject-matter appeared in the earlier Calendar of 1776, while that publication was brought out by the Stationer's Company, and before it had passed into the hands of Grand Lodge. The disputes of the year 1739 were included among the "Remarkable Occurrencies in Masonry," compiled by William Preston, who seems, moreover, to have issued a pamphlet, reflecting on the Schismatics, in 1775. A still earlier notice of his quondam co-sectaries, occurs in the second edition of the Illustrations of Masonry, which also appeared in that year. It is given as a note to the narrative of Lord Raymond's administration, and runs;

"Several persons, disgusted at some of the proceedings of the Grand Lodge at this time, renounced their allegiance to the Grand Master, and in opposition to the original laws of the Society, and their solemnties, held meetings, made Masons, and falsely assumed the appellation of a Lodge, even presumed to constitute lodges. The regular Masons, finding it necessary to check their progress, adopted some new measures. Piqued by this proceeding, they endeavoured to propagate an opinion, that the ancient practices of the Society were retained by them, and totally abolished by the regular Lodges, on whom they conferred the appellation of Modern Masons. By this artifice they continued to impose on the public, and introduced several gentlemen into their assemblies; but of late years, the fallacy being detected, they have not been so successful."

In the Freemasons' Calendar of 1776, however, the disturbances, which we are told above had their origin in 1739, are traced back to the time of Lord Loudon, whose appointment of Grand Officers in 1736, Preston now informs us, gave offence to a few individuals, who withdrew from the Society during the presidency of the Earl of Darnley, but in that of Lord Raymond "assembled in the character of Masons, and without any power or authority from the Grand Master, initiated several persons into the order for small and unworthy considerations."

Ultimately the story assumed the stereotyped form in which we now possess it. Successive editions of the Illustrations of Masonry, published in 1781, 1788, 1792, and later, inform us that in the time of the Marquis of Carnarvon (afterwards Duke of Chandos), some discontented brethren, taking advantage of the breach between the Grand Lodges of London and York, assumed, without authority, the character of York Masons; that the measures adopted to check them seemed to authorise an omission of, and a variation in, the ancient ceremonies; that the seceders immediately announced independency, and assumed the appellations of Ancient Masons, also they propagated an opinion that the ancient tenets and practice of Masonry were preserved by them; and that the regular lodges, being composed of modern masons, had adopted new plans, and were not to be considered as acting under the old establishment.[13]

It will be seen, therefore, that the whole case, as presented by Bro. Whymper, rests upon the unsupported and somewhat discrepant testimony of William Preston — with regard to which I shall first of all cite an axiom laid down by Horace Walpole, to be found in a department of literature — his published letters — wherein he is admitted to be without a rival in our language. Writing in 1784, he observes:  "The times immediately preceding their own are what all men are least acquainted with. Such times are too near us to be classical they are too far off to be familiar."[14]

William Preston, who was born at Edinburgh in 1742, came to London in 1760, and was Initiated in a Schismatic (or so-called "Ancient ") Lodge, at that time working under dispensation at the White Hart, Strand — but shortly afterwards No. 111 on the roll in 1763, some months before he had completed his twenty-first year. In November, 1764 the members of No. 111 obtained a "Constitution "from the older or legitimate Grand Lodge of England, and became the Caledonian Lodge, No. 325, now No. 134.

After a comparatively short interval — when he was in his thirtieth year — Preston delivered an oration, subsequently printed in the first edition of his Illustrations of Masonry, which appeared in 1772.

From about this date he divided with Laurence Dermott, the distinction of being the best informed mason of that time. The one (Preston), a journeyman printer, who beginning as an Ancient had ended by becoming a Modern (both the words italicised being used in their popular, and by no means in their actual signification); while the other (Dermott), a journeyman painter, had shifted his allegiance in precisely a contrary direction.

Here a passage occurs to my mind, in the writings of a great though but too often a sophistical writer, the application of which to the subject in hand will be considered after the quotation has been given.

"To write the history of a religion," says Renan, "one ought first to have believed in it (without which it would not be possible to understand by what means it fascinated and satisfied the conscience of man); and then one should have ceased to believe it in an unqualified manner, for absolute faith is incompatible with sincere history."

Now I have no thought of comparing Masonry with religion, any further, indeed, than to make the passing remark, that what is commonly spoken of as the odium theologicum will have as real an existence — though the terms used to describe it may be different — when there are Masonic as when there are religious Schisms.

Without, therefore, straining the analogy, it would appear, under the conditions laid down by Renan, that the only writers of the Craft, really qualified to figure as its historians, at the period of, and in connection with the events under consideration, were Laurence Dermott and William Preston — though subject to the proviso, that these champions were only to be believed in the character of apostates, and to be utterly discredited with regard to what they had finally adhered to as the true faith!

Thus we should have Dermott as the great authority in the early proceedings of the Regular, and Preston in those of the Irregular, Grand Lodges of England — yet, as I shall confidently submit, with quite as little reason in the one case as the other.

The odious terms Modern and Ancient, coined by the former worthy to distinguish the earlier from the later system of Masonry to which he had adhered respectively, have now passed out of use, and only exist in the memory of our antiquaries. But they present in a nutshell, the distortion of truth — not to call it by any other name — that was characteristic of their inventor whenever he took pen in hand — which was pretty often — to explain that the Masons who acted with himself were walking in the only true path, from which their rivals, whom, though of far older date, he contemptuously styled the "Moderns," had lamentably strayed.

The furious invective of the "journeyman painter," which is conspicuous throughout his Ahiman Rezon, it is true, does not appear, or if at all, only very slightly disfigures a passage or two, in the Illustrations of the "journeyman printer." But to whatever extent either of the two men becomes polemical, his writings must be viewed with distrust. I might, indeed, put it more strongly, though it will be best perhaps to steer a middle course, which can be done by laying down with confidence, that in each case of the kind, the judgment of the reader should be held in suspense, pending the production of evidence, that may turn the scale in one way or the other.

Of William Preston, it may be said, without fear of contradiction, that (to put it mildly) in all matters of a controversial nature, he laboured under a constitutional incapacity for exactitude of statement.

As a convincing example, let me cite a passage in the long foot-note copied by John Noorthouck, from a previous deliverance of the author of the Illustrations of Masonry: — "At this time [1739] no private lodge had the power of passing or raising masons; nor could any brother be advanced to either of these degrees but in the Grand Lodge, with unanimous consent and approbation of all the brethren in communication assembled."[15]

This extract shows clearly enough, that the writer who is responsible for it, was then in the infancy of his Masonic knowledge, and will suggest, very forcibly, that in the absence of corroboration, the other statements in the same foot-note should be received with equal incredulity.

I shall next submit, what was substantially advanced many years ago by Dr. Kloss, viz., that between the administration of Lord Raymond in 1739, and that of Lord Byron in 1747, nothing occurred of which any evidence is known to exist — that will justify a presumption of there having been an organised rebellion against the authority of the Grand Lodge.

The Schismatics, or so-called "Ancient Masons," came later, as Kloss affirms.

Bro. Whymper lays great stress on the number of lodges erased during the four or five years immediately preceding the administration of Lord Byron, and observes;

"A Schism was thus evidently in full swing long before Lord Byron assumed office in 1747."

With regard, however, to this conjecture — for it is nothing more — there is not only, as before remarked, an entire absence of evidence, that will warrant any such inference, but the silence of the official records, to pass over other channels of information, will be conclusive to more minds than my own, that no Schism could have been in operation, without at least some traces of its existence having been preserved in the Archives of Grand Lodge.

Of the career of William, 6th Lord Byron, I have been able to glean very few particulars. He was bom November 5th, 1722, "took early to the sea-service, and in 1738 was appointed Lieutenant of H.M.S. the Falkland." Married, March 28th, 1747, Elizabeth, "daughter and heir of Charles Shaw, of Besthorp Hall, in the county of Norfolk, by whom he had issue, 1st, William, bom June 7th, 1748, who died in the May following; 2nd, William, born October 27th, 1749, who died June 22nd, 1776." Also two daughters, Henrietta Diana, born 1751, died 1760; and Caroline, born 1755.

On December 5th, 1763, Lord Byron "was declared Master of His Majesty's Stag-hounds," which seems to dispose of a suggestion thrown out by Kloss that he may have been a Jacobite. On January 26th, 1765, he killed Mr. Chaworth (either fairly or unfairly) in a duel, and died May 19th, 1798.

The Gentleman's Magazine (1798) in a short obituary notice, says of him, — "On some family difference with his son, since dead, we have to regret that his Lordship completely dismantled his noble mansion at Newsted and sold the family pictures and timber."[16]

It will be seen, that except so far as the birth of three children during his Grand Mastership, may point in the direction of Lord Byron having been in England between the date of his taking up and laying down that office, I have been unable to throw any new light on the circumstances of his career during the period referred to.

Lastly, then, let us consider, whether what Bro. Whymper calls, with propriety, the Multa Paucis theory, has or has not, to use his own words, "an atom of bottom in it"? To save time and economise space, I shall next ask the reader who has followed me thus far, to kindly refer to the extract from the above work, given by me in my ""Manningham" article,[17] also to some previous remarks on the same which will be found as below cited.[18]

The authorship of Multa Paucis has not been revealed, but let us hear what a very learned writer has to say with respect to testimony of this class: "An history may be true," observes Dr. Watson, "though it should not only be ascribed to a wrong author, but though the author of it should not be known; anonymous testimony does not destroy the reality of facts, whether natural or miraculous. Had Lord Clarendon published his 'History of the Rebellion,' without prefixing his name to it; or had the History of Titus Livius come down to us, under the name of Valerius Flaccus, or Valerius Maximus; the facts mentioned in these histories would have been equally certain." [19]

The same scholar and divine goes on to say, "Dodsley's Annual Register is an anonymous book, we only know the name of its editor; the reviews are anonymous books; but do we, or will our posterity, esteem these books as of no authority? On the contrary, we must give up all history, if we refuse to admit facts recorded by only one historian."[20]

Having now gone over the ground, or most of it, covered by the interesting paper of our Bro. Whymper, let me, before suggesting the final conclusions which seem to me deducible from the evidence, at the present time of writing, briefly restate the actual words in which I advanced my own conjecture with respect to the origin of the Schism in English Masonry — "It appears to me that the summary erasure of Lodges for non-attendance at the Quarterly Communications, and for not 'paying in their Charity,' was one of the leading causes of the Secession, which I think must have taken place during the presidency of Lord Byron (1747-52).[21]

The point made by Bro. Whymper, that the bulk of the erasures thus referred to, took place shortly before, and not during the actual Grand Mastership of Lord Byron, instead of invalidating, appears to me to bear strongly in favour of the contention I upheld.

Throughout this period Secession or Rebellion may have been, so to speak, in the air, but any organised movement of the kind would be very slowly evolved, nor do I think it even remotely possible, that a confederacy of Masons aiming at independence, could have existed more than a year or two, at the very utmost, prior to 1751, the date which our Bro. Lane has done such excellent service in stamping indelibly on our memories. Were it otherwise, I shall venture to affirm that some traces of such earlier existence would have come down to us.

It will be seen that wholly apart from the passage in Multa Paucis, to which I shall next refer, the date of origin I assign to the "Ancients," falls within the period covered by Lord Byron's presidency of the older and more orthodox Society.

According to the work last cited,[22] the Fraternity being neglected by Lord Byron, resolved to elect a new and more active Grand Master, but were deterred from so doing by the prudent advice of Dr. Manningham.

Here we have evidence of an organised rebellion against the authority of the Grand Lodge, or perhaps it will be best to say, against the want of authority exhibited by the Grand Master.

"The breach was healed," at least for a time, and the brother to whose credit this has been set down by the author of Multa Paucis, at the very next appointment of Grand Officers (1752), as we learn from the official records, was advanced at one bound from the office of Grand Steward to that of Deputy Grand Master.

"This points," — as I have elsewhere argued at some length[23] — "to his having rendered signal service to the Society, which would so far harmonise with the passage in Multa Paucis, and be altogether in keeping with the character of the man.[24]

In conclusion, I beg to thank Bros. Lane and Whymper for the kindly references to myself in their several articles, and, quite as warmly, for pointing out any errors of statement into which they may have thought I had fallen. As we are quaintly but expressively reminded

The wind in one's face makes one wise.

More last words. Further space having been allotted me, I turn to the Report on Foreign Correspondence for Colorado, 1892, by Past Grand Master Laurence N. Greenleaf of that State, where there appears;

"One of the most important questions now before the Fraternity is; the Antiquity of Masonic Degrees. Under various headings in this Report we have had occasion to discuss this subject at considerable length more especially under Iowa and Utah. Under the latter we have given the opinion of Bro R. F. Gould in connection with the discovery of the letters of Dr Thomas Manningham, D.G. Master of England, 1752-56, and also extracts from these very important letters. Heretofore Bro. Gould himself has most strenuously maintained that Old Regulation XIII referred to two degrees only: Masters or Fellow Crafts' [italics his]. He has also written the following: The degrees of Ancient Masonry were two only and those of Modern Masonry were the same in number — at least until 1723."

"We are rejoiced to know that he has seen proper to reverse his opinion. Prominent writers have for years reiterated the same views, having little patience with those who had the temerity to differ with them. And yet not a particle of evidence was ever adduced to show when such addition occurred. Bro. Gould, as shown above, once intimated that it must have been subsequent to 1723. There is no mention in the records of the Grand Lodge of England of any such addition. Upon no other subject did our Masonic ancestors exhibit such anxiety as upon that of innovations and the maintenance of the old customs and usages of the Fraternity. To have added a third degree in our system, at anytime since 1723, would have created sufficient stir to have left its impress upon the records of the Grand Lodge of England, as well as in contemporary Masonic writings. The very integrity of the Masonic system would thereby have been imperilled; for, once admit the right of the governing body of the Craft to add one degree and others would necessarily follow."

"The discovery of the Manningham letters has happily settled the controversy for the present, at least, and demonstrated the existence of the three degrees during the last quarter of the seventeenth century. Thus one more link has been added to the chain of evidence that Masonry was a perfect system at the start."[25]

So far, Bro. Greenleaf, whose quotations from my own writings would seem to imply that he has read an article of mine on the "Antiquity of Masonic Degrees," originally published in the Freemasons' Chronicle of August 2nd, 1890, and reprinted in the Official Bulletin[26] of the Supreme Council, S.J., of June, 1892. If, however, I am wrong in this supposition, the reference given will enable him, if so inclined, to peruse the article at leisure. Its value in my own eyes is enhanced — not from the fact of having written it, but because it appears among the latest "cuttings" preserved by Albert Pike, for insertion in that wonderful magazine, the organ of his Rite, the publication of which has now ceased,[27] owing, it may reasonably be supposed, to the utter impossibility of finding anyone who could take up and continue the editorial labours, so long and so brilliantly conducted by the late Grand Commander.

The final words of the article on Degrees from which Bro. Greenleaf has quoted are as follows: "If Old Regulation XIII. had been properly understood by the past generation of Masonic writers, we should have heard nothing whatever of a new ceremonial (or new Degrees) having been concocted between 1717 and 1723."

Of the truth of this statement I still retain a lively conviction. Two degrees and not three are certainly alluded to in the above "Regulations," and the oftener this interpretation of the clause is disputed, the more does a saying of Sir Isaac Newton come home to me, "A man must either resolve to put out nothing new, or become a slave to defend it."

My contention was and is, that "the first three degrees, as we now have them, though communicated in two steps instead of three, were in existence before the era of Grand Lodges."[28]

Or, as expressed in my "Manningham" article, "The secrets of the first three degrees were the same before the year 1717, as after it."[29]

If the passage last referred to, is in any way ambiguous, I regret it, and would point out to Bro. Greenleaf, that the secrets of the first three degrees remain the same, though communicated, as I have myself witnessed in Scotland, in one step (or continuing ceremony) instead of three. The "old brother of ninety," cited by Dr. Manningham, may have been admitted in a somewhat similar manner — though to obviate any further misunderstanding, let me hasten to explain, that if he were not, the ceremonies through which he passed must have been the Apprentice part, on one occasion; and the Master's part, on another. The former comprised what are now called the degrees of E.A. and F.C.; and the latter, that of Master Mason.

My thanks are due to Past Grand Master Bobbins of Illinois, and Grand Secretary Vaillant of the Netherlands, for their remarks on my "Manningham" article. The pamphlet of the latter describes in just terms the value of Bro. Hertzveld's discovery, and I shall ask him to kindly express to that worthy and venerable Brother, my sincere congratulations on the incredulity, with which the "Letters" were originally received, having been long since effectually stamped out.


  1. A.Q.C., V. 93.
  2. Ibid. V. 17.
  3. The Complete Free-mason; or, Multa Paucis for Lovers of Secrets.
  4. Constitutions, 1784.
  5. Illustrations of Masonry.
  6. Emerson, Essay on Self Reliance.
  7. Hist. of F. ii., 2nd half-volume.
  8. Freemason, Oct. 18th, 1885; Lane, Masonic Register, preface xii.
  9. A.Q.C., v. 166.
  10. Boyes Lacon in Council, viii.
  11. Edit. 1784, by John Noorthouok, 239-41.
  12. Illustrations in Masonry (various editions) passim.
  13. See further, Hist. of F., ii., 393, 397, 424.
  14. Letters to Sir H. Mann, i., 181.
  15. Ante, 19.
  16. Collins, Peerage of Enqland, edit. 1779, vii. 138; edit. 1812, vii. 111. Gent. Mag., Ixviii., 448.
  17. A.Q.C., V. 96.
  18. Hist. of F., ii. 395, note 3.
  19. An Apology for the Bible, in a Series of Letters addressed to Thomas Paine, Esq. By B. Watson, D.D., F.R.S., Bishop of Llandaff (1796), letter ii., 37.
  20. A.Q.C., v., 103; Hist. of F., ii., 398.
  21. Ibid., 93, 239.
  22. The Complete Freemasons; or, Multa Paucis for Lovers of Secrets[1763-64] 105; see also A.Q.C., v., 96; Hist. of F., ii,, 395; and ante, 17.
  23. A.Q.C., v., 97; Hist. of F., ii., 396.
  24. See the Constitutions, 1756, and later editions, under Ap. 3rd, 1753.
  25. Proc. G. L. Colorado (1892), 202.
  26. vol. x., 765.
  27. Transactions, S.C. (Oct., 1892), 43.
  28. A.Q.C., v., 57.
  29. Ibid. 112.

Ars Quatuor Coronati, 1893.